Why must people try to assume a position of moral authority based on the silliest things?

[schroing]

My claims may be hyperbole, but they're not unjustified; most of the respondents in the latest thread were of the 'smokers are stinky, evil, polluting people that have no consideration for anyone else.' So, I've countered by pointing out that I, as an example, am conscientious, and well aware of the health risks I impose on myself. I'm also pointed out that there are many things that have a greater health impact on the world around us, that people willingly ignore.

On the point of 'people may have said this and meant something else', I, like you, am forced to interpret what I read based on the tone of the response, because the written word so rarely directly projects the meaning or intent of the writer. So, when I see people write 'smokers are idiots', and little else, I'm forced to interpret that as a loaded and literal description of the smoker, from that point of view. I will then relegate that person to the same place I relegate religious bigots and fanatics. It sucks, but they're obvious unwilling to even meet me halfway, in a civilized discussion.

And I seriously doubt that the people that would like to see tobacco made illegal would then support rehab. I wouldn't mind my rights extending as far as theirs do, though; they have the right to disapprove, and I have the right to pursue my bad habit, and we should be equally courteous, and try to not aggravate each other.

That so rarely happens, in my experience.

"Stinky," sure. I read that a few times; but most of the time, that's a fact. It's a very, very well known, medical side effect of smoking. "Evil," that I didn't see very often. "Polluting," was usually related to "The kind of smoker I hate is the kind who smokes right in your face" or something like that. For example, in those three quotes quoted earlier on this page - nowhere are smokers in general insulted as people. One says that the act of smoking lacks common sense. It's difficult to find a situation where that's not true. I sincerely doubt your roof-painter or whatever situation is the norm. Another described, in melodramatic fashion, addiction. The last described medical side effects of smoking.

None of these things seem so awful to incur one's wrath. As I said, there was one post which was on the vehement side which I can recall - one. That's far from "most."

And what exactly is a 'civilized discussion' to you? Can you really say that you've -tried- to engage people in this? Before you say it, I wouldn't consider this thread to be a very good example of that.

And-and; I doubt that, but this is a pretty pointless argument. We're just pointing at a nonexistent person and trying to decide what he believes. If you can honestly say that you've read things that support things like this, why not toss up a link? Surely, if they come up so often as to warrant this thread, it shouldn't be tough to find.

Also; so you're saying people should only say what they think if they're doing so in a manner of which you approve of?

 

[schroing]

No, he's the problem. If you're a problem you should have to take the punishment for it.

So you have the right to walk up to someone and order them to leave because you don't like what they're doing?

We can take your argument and apply it to music. For example, someone's standing at a bus stop waiting on their bus listening to a boombox or something. Your argument insists that if it is music you personally find disgusting and headache inducing, you have the right to insist he stops the music or leaves, even though he's been there God only knows how much longer than you.

That's probably one of the most selfish and narcissistic worldviews I've ever seen.

There's a difference between "personally dislike" and "cancer-inducing." A better example would be a person standing around in public with a boombox turned up loud enough to damage peoples' eardrums; why exactly -shouldn't- he be told to stop?

 

[schroing]

Ha - make that two people. Thanks a ton, KingTiger.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Well considering that thousands of people get cancer from smoking, and then the rest of us have to pay the hospital bill(through taxes[I live in Canada]), I think I have room to complain

 

[Agayek]

There's a difference between "personally dislike" and "cancer-inducing." A better example would be a person standing around in public with a boombox turned up loud enough to damage peoples' eardrums; why exactly -shouldn't- he be told to stop?

Except any effects from second-hand smoke are negligible outdoors, unless you're standing directly downwind, and you stand there for a prolonged period. It's not pleasant to breath, but you will inhale as many, if not more, toxic particles walking down a moderately busy street than to stand (outdoors) next to a smoker for a few minutes. And if you're smart about it and stand upwind from the smoker, and with a moderate distance between you, you won't breath hardly any of the toxins from the cigarette.

 

[Archemetis]

you don't drive: I can't drive and most of the time choose not to ride in a car... Travel sickness.

you don't buys things that have to be transported to you by non-green vehicles: I have no money for deliveries... Don't have a Job.

you don't pay taxes towards road and transportation upkeep: I haven't paid any taxes since I was 16, I'm now 22

you don't get your power from a coal-burning power plant: Technically it's not even my power, but I use it, so you got me there.

you don't (knowingly or unknowingly) support clear-cutting, the oil-sands, or resource-harvesting corporations: I don't know what most of those are... Apart from clear cutting.

you don't eat fast food: I eat Subway... It's the really the only decent place to eat.

you don't buy cosmetic products or consumer good that are made of, tested, or otherwise harm animals: I'm a guy and I don't even shave unless it's totally necessary.

you don't have a dwelling that remains weather-proof due to oil-based products: I live in a house, I don't actively contribute anything towards it, but it's a roof and likely made of something that harms the environment.

you don't produce any sewage or waste that goes into the river and lakes, or must be transported to a landfill: I produce more than my share rubbish, I'm very conscientious about where I put it though.

you don't maintain your dwelling, or allow it to be maintained using gas or electric landscaping methods, or non-natural products: Again it's not even my house and I have nothing to contribute to it... But I do live within it and use it's resources.


I'm not about to say I'm an virtuous paragon, working for the good of the planet and my fellow man.

In fact, fuck my fellow man, I hope the majority of them burn in a fire.
And yeah, I'm rather mixed up about how I'm Pro-Animals but eat pretty much nothing but meat.
I'm a traditional illustrator who uses inks that are likely made of animal intestines and paper that's been made out of an entire woodland area (which I try to cut back on with a graphics tablet, that way only the electric I'm using is causing damage to the earth).

I don't give two shits about who smokes or why or anything else they do (well ok there are a few things I care about, like murder and molestation etc...) The way I see it, humans as a species are more of a parasitic life-form and if some of them wanna take up habits that get rid of the lot of us a bit faster then fair does.

I'm just going to remain comfortable in a fact I just outright can't be bothered with any of it myself.

In short, smoke if you want, shit put on a grass skirt and call yourself 'Mistress Tiki' while you're at it if you want to.

I pretty much don't care either way.

 

[schroing]

There's a difference between "personally dislike" and "cancer-inducing." A better example would be a person standing around in public with a boombox turned up loud enough to damage peoples' eardrums; why exactly -shouldn't- he be told to stop?

Except any effects from second-hand smoke are negligible outdoors, unless you're standing directly downwind, and you stand there for a prolonged period. It's not pleasant to breath, but you will inhale as many, if not more, toxic particles walking down a moderately busy street than to stand (outdoors) next to a smoker for a few minutes. And if you're smart about it and stand upwind from the smoker, and with a moderate distance between you, you won't breath hardly any of the toxins from the cigarette.

A moderate distance and the music probably wouldn't bust your 'drums, either. Doesn't make it reasonable.

 

[BogComm]

I personally don't smoke, never have, never will. However, I do have a rather cynical view on the whole matter. Most people who smoke either don't smoke enough or they smoke too much.

"What the deuce?" you say?

If the person is still alive, then they aren't smoking enough. Allow me to buy you another pack.

If the person is experiencing health issues they find undesirable, then they are smoking too much. Toss the rest of the pack in the garbage and start a new chapter in your life.

Mostly, I don't try to play any sort of moral high ground. I just ask that people with self-destructive habits keep said habits to themselves.

 

[Pariah87]

Let people ***** and complain, if anything it's amusing.

As far as paying for hospital treatment goes, or not being treated for being a smoker, then give me back the portion of my taxes that pays for my NHS healthcare and then everyone is happy. Until then I reserve the right as a taxpayer to get treatment for any ailment I suffer, smoking related or otherwise.

Hating smoking because a loved one died from smoking is silly in my opinion at least (out of 4 grandparents, all of them smoked, although 2 quit around 25 years before they died, and 3 of them died from smoking related illnesses). That would be like hating trains or train drivers, or not wanting to ride a train because a loved one decided to throw themselves under one.

Apparently, we smell. Personally I've always loved the smell of smoke in any form.

Smokers have already been segregated. I'm sure over the next 50 years it will become a pastime only for the poor (which is ironic) as the intelligent "elite" will see just how bad it is and shall stamp it out in "civilised" society.

Of course all the haters are free to voice their opinions and think of me what they will. If I don't know you personally then you already mean nothing to me just like your opinions, so don't be too offended when I light up infront of you as if you don't exist.

Of course it's not just the militant anti-smokers that I actively enjoy mocking and pissing off. Then we have the vegetarians, the extremely relegious, the extremely athiest, the "save the environment" people, the people that tell me I should give money to help starving people thousands of miles away, people who think watching sport is dumb, people who think not watching sport is dumb, overly patriotic people, completely unpatriotic people.

People have too much to worry about now, too much to get their knickers in a twist about. In the good old days, you had to worry about growing enough food to eat over the winter or you'd starve to death. As life has become easier, as a species we seem to have to keep making up problems or causes or ways to escape the increasing inanity of our everyday lives.

How many Africans who are in fear of their lives on a daily basis, who have to cope without clean water or a constant supply of food do you think really give a damn if someone is smoking near them or eating a steak? Somehow I doubt there are many.

 

[Bat Vader]

As long as someone does not try and force me to smoke cigarettes than I don't care if they want to smoke. I do despise second hand smoke though and if I am anywhere near someone who is smoking I will pull out a tissue and cover my mouth with it. That way they can smoke and I don't have to breathe in the second hand smoke.

 

[Samus Aaron]

Why do you automatically assume that us non-smokers have a holier-than-thou attitude about every smoker? Maybe, oh I don't know, it just sucks having poisonous fumes blown into your face?! and I'm not even talking about the health risks, since you seem to be practically ignoring those factors anyway, I'm just talking about how simply annoying it is. I, for example, am allergic to practically everything (grass, pollen, dust, you name it) and this kind of thing is an unnecessary barrier to me doing something as common as breathing. There's nothing holier-than-thou about it! And to those who say something along the lines of "just ignore it and two seconds later it will be gone, that's just plain selfish. You can insult someone and if they forget it, it will be gone. You can glare at every person that walks by you and if they forget that, it will be done and gone. But you know what? That doesn't mean it isn't rude and selfish. The same goes for smoking. Saying that something that will unnecessarily inconvenience someone else should just be shoved off is putting YOUR priorities ahead of someone else's, which is just a really dickish thing to do, as it says that everyone else "My needs are more important than everyone else's, so they can just suck it". Now who is acting holier-than-thou, hmm?

Anyway, I have no beef against smokers themselves, it's just the smoking that annoys me.

 

[schroing]

-snip-

lol

See Aerodynamic? This is pretty much how you're coming off.

 

[Aerodyamic]

My claims may be hyperbole, but they're not unjustified; most of the respondents in the latest thread were of the 'smokers are stinky, evil, polluting people that have no consideration for anyone else.' So, I've countered by pointing out that I, as an example, am conscientious, and well aware of the health risks I impose on myself. I'm also pointed out that there are many things that have a greater health impact on the world around us, that people willingly ignore.

On the point of 'people may have said this and meant something else', I, like you, am forced to interpret what I read based on the tone of the response, because the written word so rarely directly projects the meaning or intent of the writer. So, when I see people write 'smokers are idiots', and little else, I'm forced to interpret that as a loaded and literal description of the smoker, from that point of view. I will then relegate that person to the same place I relegate religious bigots and fanatics. It sucks, but they're obvious unwilling to even meet me halfway, in a civilized discussion.

And I seriously doubt that the people that would like to see tobacco made illegal would then support rehab. I wouldn't mind my rights extending as far as theirs do, though; they have the right to disapprove, and I have the right to pursue my bad habit, and we should be equally courteous, and try to not aggravate each other.

That so rarely happens, in my experience.

"Stinky," sure. I read that a few times; but most of the time, that's a fact. It's a very, very well known, medical side effect of smoking. "Evil," that I didn't see very often. "Polluting," was usually related to "The kind of smoker I hate is the kind who smokes right in your face" or something like that. For example, in those three quotes quoted earlier on this page - nowhere are smokers in general insulted as people. One says that the act of smoking lacks common sense. It's difficult to find a situation where that's not true. I sincerely doubt your roof-painter or whatever situation is the norm. Another described, in melodramatic fashion, addiction. The last described medical side effects of smoking.

None of these things seem so awful to incur one's wrath. As I said, there was one post which was on the vehement side which I can recall - one. That's far from "most."

And what exactly is a 'civilized discussion' to you? Can you really say that you've -tried- to engage people in this? Before you say it, I wouldn't consider this thread to be a very good example of that.

And-and; I doubt that, but this is a pretty pointless argument. We're just pointing at a nonexistent person and trying to decide what he believes. If you can honestly say that you've read things that support things like this, why not toss up a link? Surely, if they come up so often as to warrant this thread, it shouldn't be tough to find.

Also; so you're saying people should only say what they think if they're doing so in a manner of which you approve of?

There were repeated references to second-hand smoke, which I would imagine qualifies as 'pollution'.

And actually, I've been rather civil about my approach; I think I've used obscenity once, and generally pointed out that most respondents in the various smoking thread have been, generally, impolite at best, and in some case, pretty damn rude. I'm also not the only person that feels that smokers have been particularly singled out; as I mentioned, there's been at least 4 threads about it in just the last month.

Go and re-read every one of those threads, and tell me the general tone isn't derogatory; I believe I posted in every single one, and that's what I recall most distinctly about them.

Um, you're a little off target there, sonny.

People complain that second hand smoke has negative health impacts, and so does a car. Cars produce more ppm of harmful airborne pollutants than cigarettes do. In fact, it's often claimed that second-hand smoke is a massive factor in cancer amongst non-smokers (I'm not up-to-date on those stats, so I'll let you worry about that), and I've pretty accurately pointed out that the direct pollution from a car is more dangerous than my second-hand smoke, because of the massive difference in the scale of exposure.

No, I'm not off target. Again we're not talking about pollution, you're going on a strawman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman] here (though I could be completely wrong there, I admit). Where have I ever commented on pollution with smokers? Of course cars with their emissions cause more pollution, but I've never argued that.

What most people argue with smoking is the personal destruction of your own health. Like I said before, the Tobacco industry is one of the few industries that profit from the deaths of their customers, right next to the funeral/cremation/burial/ect... industry.

You're trying to justify your own bad habit when nobody really asked you to (and yes, it is a bad habit, you cannot deny that). You know the risks and consequences of being a frequent smoker, right? And yet you still choose to smoke, at least initially, until the addiction kicked in and it became a habit. That's what people do not like about it.

Once again, I don't mind smokers. You are free to to what you want with your body, whether it's drinking till you black out, sucking a "cancer-stick", sticking syringes in your arms, or yodel before bed. But you have to understand where the "high horses" are coming from, right?

If my argument can be directly supported and relevant, it's not a strawman. If it doesn't agree with you, however, it obviously must be.

Now you're just trying to patronize me, ironically acting on a "higher horse" like the pople you're complaining about. Your statistics may be supported, but we're not talking about pollution. In your original post, you go on to say "If you're so pure and innocent, why don't you prove to me that you [pointless list here]". The problem is, nobody you've quoted ever claimed that they were clean from environmental impact. I believe that's an Ad Hominem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem] fallacy, though, again, I'm not good at pointing out fallacies, so take it how you will.

YOU may not have personally commented on pollution, but every time someone has mentioned second-hand smoke, they are, by extension, calling it pollution. I've been pointing out that the second-hand smoke which many people have used as a crux to their arguments has no different impact on the general public health, and in fact, has a lesser impact, than MANY other things. That's not a strawman; a strawman implies that I've set up some easier target to refute, and claiming that by extension, refutation of the weaker target is refutation of the main argument. For me to be arguing ad hominem, I'd have to be doing more than pointing out that some people are on 'high horses' about smoking. I'm called some people impolite, and hypocrites, and willingly ignorant, but those have been descriptors that were particularly valid, at the time, from my eyes.

Did I even use the term 'high horses' in this thread? I know it was used a few times by others, and at least once in the other recent thread, but I don't know if I did. Lemme go look.

*peeking around*

I don't see where I did, but I might have.

 

[I Max95]

well i cant say its a "slow and painfull death" because i know that isnt definant
my grandma has been smoking since she was 12 (or so she says) and now she is in Her eighties and is still alive and kicking

everyone has a choice as to whether or not to smoke i will never do it but thats my choice
i dont mind the smoke too much but i do tend to stand a few feet away whenever she lights one up during conversation

 

[Aerodyamic]

-snip-

lol

See Aerodynamic? This is pretty much how you're coming off.

I don't see that he said anything particularly loony. In fact, he's got a point: everybody worries about all sorts of trivial shit like my smoking, when there are greater moral crusades they could pursue.

Why do you automatically assume that us non-smokers have a holier-than-thou attitude about every smoker? Maybe, oh I don't know, it just sucks having poisonous fumes blown into your face?! and I'm not even talking about the health risks, since you seem to be practically ignoring those factors anyway, I'm just talking about how simply annoying it is. I, for example, am allergic to practically everything (grass, pollen, dust, you name it) and this kind of thing is an unnecessary barrier to me doing something as common as breathing. There's nothing holier-than-thou about it! And to those who say something along the lines of "just ignore it and two seconds later it will be gone, that's just plain selfish. You can insult someone and if they forget it, it will be gone. You can glare at every person that walks by you and if they forget that, it will be done and gone. But you know what? That doesn't mean it isn't rude and selfish. Saying that something that will unnecessarily inconvenience someone else should just be shoved off is putting YOUR priorities ahead of someone else's, which is just a really dickish thing to do, as it says that everyone else "My needs are more important than everyone else's, so they can just suck it". Now who is acting holier-than-thou, hmm?

Anyway, I have no beef against smokers themselves, it's just the smoking that annoys me.

Did you miss the several times where I pointed out that when people politely mention that they have health concerns and comfort issues that my smoking impinges on, I'm quite happy to accommodate them by not smoking near them? That said, your tone isn't very polite, but if you and I were in the same general vicinity, I'd still be willing to move downwind, so I didn't aggravate your already complex respiratory issues.

You should try wearing a paper painters' mask, though, if you have respiratory attacks that can be that readily triggered; even if it only cuts down on the frequency, it might help you be more comfortable.

I'm also well aware of the health risks of smoking.

 

[schroing]

There were repeated references to second-hand smoke, which I would imagine qualifies as 'pollution'.

And actually, I've been rather civil about my approach; I think I've used obscenity once, and generally pointed out that most respondents in the various smoking thread have been, generally, impolite at best, and in some case, pretty damn rude. I'm also not the only person that feels that smokers have been particularly singled out; as I mentioned, there's been at least 4 threads about it in just the last month.

Go and re-read every one of those threads, and tell me the general tone isn't derogatory; I believe I posted in every single one, and that's what I recall most distinctly about them.

'Pollution' implies a different thing altogether. I don't think many people are worried about anything other than directly being in the path of smoke.

I'm not arguing that you haven't been civil. I'm just asking what you consider to be un-civil. People tend to have different methods of communication, different 'limits,' if you understand. As for why smoking is being singled out; well, it's on peoples' minds. We can only speculate as to why.

And no; once is enough. The general consensus, as far as I could tell, was that people don't like smoking. Every now and then, someone would claim to dislike smokers as well, and generally that'd lead to an argument and hostilities - which may be where you're getting your feel from. But, again, as far as I could tell they were split to lean towards your side more than anything.

 

[schroing]

I don't see that he said anything particularly loony. In fact, he's got a point: everybody worries about all sorts of trivial shit like my smoking, when there are greater moral crusades they could pursue.

"Fuck vegetarians, religion, people who care about foreign countries, and people who care about the environment." I would call being against any and all of those things utterly loony, though I might give the thing about religion a slide. That you wouldn't is baffling to me.

 

[Samus Aaron]

Did you miss the several times where I pointed out that when people politely mention that they have health concerns and comfort issues that my smoking impinges on, I'm quite happy to accommodate them by not smoking near them? That said, your tone isn't very polite, but if you and I were in the same general vicinity, I'd still be willing to move downwind, so I didn't aggravate your already complex respiratory issues.

You should try wearing a paper painters' mask, though, if you have respiratory attacks that can be that readily triggered; even if it only cuts down on the frequency, it might help you be more comfortable.

I'm also well aware of the health risks of smoking.

While I'm sure you and many other smokers do their best to smoke around others, a greater many others do not follow suit; thus my annoyance. I have no personal anger towards any person in particular, including yourself, I'm just making an argument, as per the "discussion" aspect of this thread.

I apologize if I'm coming off as sounding angry, this was not my intention.